Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #282 > unrolled thread

off-topic: help finding intel cpu

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware

Contents

  off-topic: help finding intel cpu Ed <ed-newsgroups@s5h.net> - 2011-04-30 13:19 -0500
    Re: off-topic: help finding intel cpu "Trevor Hemsley" <Trevor.Hemsley@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> - 2011-04-30 14:47 -0500
      Re: off-topic: help finding intel cpu Ed <ed-newsgroups@s5h.net> - 2011-05-01 05:53 -0500
        Re: off-topic: help finding intel cpu "Trevor Hemsley" <Trevor.Hemsley@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> - 2011-05-01 06:33 -0500
          Re: off-topic: help finding intel cpu J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2011-05-01 17:11 +0000
            Re: off-topic: help finding intel cpu AD <isquat@gmail.com> - 2011-05-13 00:11 -0700
              Re: off-topic: help finding intel cpu "Trevor Hemsley" <Trevor.Hemsley@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> - 2011-05-13 15:58 -0500
        Re: off-topic: help finding intel cpu Danno <WhoaBaby@MySecretPlace.org> - 2011-05-01 08:05 -0600
          Re: off-topic: help finding intel cpu "Trevor Hemsley" <Trevor.Hemsley@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> - 2011-05-01 12:12 -0500
        Re: off-topic: help finding intel cpu "Trevor Hemsley" <Trevor.Hemsley@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> - 2011-05-07 21:48 -0500

#282 — off-topic: help finding intel cpu

Hi All,

I'm in a bit of a pickle. I never really keep up with hardware that
well, I'm more a software tinkerer. Currently I've got CPU envy, seem
all the cool people out there are able to experiment with hardware
virtualization whilst I'm stuck in the dark ages with emulation. So I'm
looking for some help sourcing a replacement CPU.

So at the moment I've got a Gigabyte 945PL-S3P motherboard, the CPU slot
is Socket 775, but I've not been able to find any P4 CPU's on the normal
sites in the UK.

Would anyone know what I can get to replace my current P4 3.4GH with,
the capabilities are listed as:

  boot fpu fpu_exception wp vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge
  mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx
  x86-64 constant_tsc pebs bts pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl est tm2 cid
  cx16 xtpr pdcm lahf_lm

But there's no vmx - what's a good, hopefully inexpensive upgrade path?

Many thanks

-- 
Best regards,
Ed http://www.s5h.net/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#283

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 18:19:00 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, Ed 
<ed-newsgroups@s5h.net> wrote:

> But there's no vmx - what's a good, hopefully inexpensive upgrade path?

If you want to stick with that motherboard then this table 
http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=2541 shows 
the various CPUs that are supported on different BIOS and hardware revisions. 
Looks like you need a 6.6 revision mainboard to think about most of them. All 
the Qxxxx models seem to say N/A which I take to mean that they do not work at 
all. The absolute fastest there seems to be the E8600 which is a 3.3GHz but I 
think that only works at its 1333MHz FSB by overclocking. A safer bet from a 
speed point of view might be the E7500 but I cannot work out from the Intel spec
pages if it supports vmx or not - there seems to be some weirdness that says 
e7500's shipped after a certain date do and ones from before do not. The fastest
one on their list that runs at 1066MHz FSB natively and supports vmx seems to be
the e6700. That seems to be still available new and boxed for about £60 from 
Scan for example. If you want to really cut corners on costs then they seem to 
sell for about £50 on fleabay. I think for that extra £10 I'd take the new boxed
one.

Suggest you check out my research too rather than just believing what I type :-)

-- 
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#284

On 2011-04-30, Trevor Hemsley <Trevor.Hemsley@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 18:19:00 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, Ed 
><ed-newsgroups@s5h.net> wrote:
>
>> But there's no vmx - what's a good, hopefully inexpensive upgrade path?
>
> If you want to stick with that motherboard then this table 
> http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=2541 shows 
> the various CPUs that are supported on different BIOS and hardware revisions. 
> Looks like you need a 6.6 revision mainboard to think about most of them. All 
> the Qxxxx models seem to say N/A which I take to mean that they do not work at 
> all. The absolute fastest there seems to be the E8600 which is a 3.3GHz but I 
> think that only works at its 1333MHz FSB by overclocking. A safer bet from a 
> speed point of view might be the E7500 but I cannot work out from the Intel spec
> pages if it supports vmx or not - there seems to be some weirdness that says 
> e7500's shipped after a certain date do and ones from before do not. The fastest
> one on their list that runs at 1066MHz FSB natively and supports vmx seems to be
> the e6700. That seems to be still available new and boxed for about £60 from 
> Scan for example. If you want to really cut corners on costs then they seem to 
> sell for about £50 on fleabay. I think for that extra £10 I'd take the new boxed
> one.
>
> Suggest you check out my research too rather than just believing what I type :-)

Thanks for your valuable info Trevor. Are P4 chips no longer made socket
775s? Is a core2 as good as a P4? Do they use more or less power?

-- 
Best regards,
Ed http://www.s5h.net/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#285

On Sun, 1 May 2011 10:53:45 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, Ed 
<ed-newsgroups@s5h.net> wrote:

> Are P4 chips no longer made socket
> 775s? Is a core2 as good as a P4? Do they use more or less power?

Without knowing the exact P4 3.4GHz that you have, it's difficult to say but I 
think that it's safe to say that Core 2 Duo chips are almost certainly newer, 
manufactured with a more modern process, use less power and run faster. In 
addition, I suspect your old P4 is a single core where a Core 2 Duo is a dual 
core processor. So a quick google found me these stats but I do not know for 
sure that they relate to your exact processor

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+4+3.40GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+Duo+E6700+%40+2.66GHz

The first one shows a P4 3.4GHz scoring 548 and the second an e6700 scoring 
1,654. Assuming that they are benchmarking both e6700 cores and adding the 
numbers together, that still means that each core is about 50% faster than your 
current P4 and there are twice as many of them. Tricky to tell for sure since 
there are multiple P4 models running at 3.40GHz - the 550, 650, 551 and 651 as 
well as an Extreme Edition version. The power consumption of those ranges from 
84W to 114W. The E6700 is a 65W processor.

Core 2 Duo processors are the successors to the old Pentium 4's and are 
generally much better regarded.

You need to check the hardware revision of your motherboard which will probably 
be stamped on the motherboard itself so you'll need to open the case and peer 
inside - a nice bright torch will help to find it, usually on the back lefthand 
corner of the board but it could be anywhere. You'll also want to check the 
current BIOS that you have installed and flash it if it's below the one listed 
in the chart I posted a link to before.

I also found a page that says that the e7500 comes in two different types 
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=36503#ordering one with VT-x and one 
without. You'd need to get an SLGTE one to have VT-x and a search on SLGTE on 
Ebay shows them selling for about £65 secondhand without heatsink/fan. That one 
scores 2,000 or so on the same benchmark website as the other two.

-- 
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#287

On Sunday, May 1st, 2011 at 06:33:54h -0500, Trevor Hemsley wrote:
>
> Core 2 Duo processors are the successors to the old Pentium 4's and are
> generally much better regarded.

Agreed -- the P4s are best avoided because they run so warm and require
significantly more cooling (and thus the generation of more fan noise)
than the subsequent Core 2 Duos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#346

On May 1, 8:11 pm, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1st, 2011 at 06:33:54h -0500, Trevor Hemsley wrote:
>
> > Core 2 Duo processors are the successors to the old Pentium 4's and are
> > generally much better regarded.
>
> Agreed -- the P4s are best avoided because they run so warm and require
> significantly more cooling (and thus the generation of more fan noise)
> than the subsequent Core 2 Duos.

Case to the point: my e2160 supports x86-64 which e2140 I believe does
not
and yet can work throttling its speed while e2180 shuts off if fan
dies.

Still, I thinking of going to either q8200 or q8300 since I reflashed
my
X38 mobo to a fresh firmware that supports quads.

To OP: it seems that you may want to get a better mobo, pound
sterlings permitting
since quads are the way to go as the population of busyloop and
similar
antipattern writers grows.

I have a jr.fucker here who claims that
while(somevolatilebooleansetinanotherthread);
wait does not contribute to killing the battery life on iphone.
I'd fire him, but he does not report to me. Soo, do you think busy
loops end up
in production code? You bet they do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349

On Fri, 13 May 2011 07:11:05 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, AD 
<isquat@gmail.com> wrote:

> Case to the point: my e2160 supports x86-64 which e2140 I believe does
> not
> and yet can work throttling its speed while e2180 shuts off if fan
> dies.

Not according to Intel's docs. They all have the same features according to 
these tables:

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=29738
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=29739
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=31733

-- 
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#286

On Sun, 01 May 2011 05:53:45 -0500
Ed <ed-newsgroups@s5h.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Suggest you check out my research too rather than just believing what
> > I type :-)
> 
> Thanks for your valuable info Trevor. Are P4 chips no longer made socket
> 775s? Is a core2 as good as a P4? Do they use more or less power?
> 

  You might want to consider just building a cheap system around an Atom
CPU, if high performance isn't an issue. I believe they all (or almost
all) have the VT-x instructions.



-- 
Slackware 13.1, 2.6.33.4-smp, Core i7 920
RLU #272755

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#288

On Sun, 1 May 2011 14:05:23 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, Danno 
<WhoaBaby@MySecretPlace.org> wrote:

>   You might want to consider just building a cheap system around an Atom
> CPU, if high performance isn't an issue. I believe they all (or almost
> all) have the VT-x instructions.

Atom's are great if low power usage is your overriding concern but compared to 
other processors, their performance sucks. Also looks to me from the table on 
the intel web site that about half support VT-x and the other half do not. They 
are also not socket compatible with S775 processors which means a new 
motherboard at the very least and possibly new case, RAM and heatsink/fan as 
well.

-- 
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#333

On Sun, 1 May 2011 10:53:45 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, Ed 
<ed-newsgroups@s5h.net> wrote:

> Are P4 chips no longer made socket
> 775s? Is a core2 as good as a P4? Do they use more or less power?

Strangely I just decided to switch my cpu in the opposite direction and went 
from a Core 2 Quad q6600 down to a Core 2 Duo e6600 that I bought on Ebay for 
£30. It uses about half the power of the q6600 and for my application mix, I 
realised that I wasn't ever using 4 cores at a time so 2 cores are better. It 
has the VT-x capability and is one step down from the e6700 I was pointing you 
to before.

-- 
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.hardware

csiph-web